By Mark Vargas | Commentary, Illinois Review
Colorado officials want the public to believe that keeping former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters in prison is justice. But when a woman’s health is collapsing, when she is rapidly declining, and when her continued confinement now poses a direct threat to her life, the law tells a very different story.
Colorado is not simply neglecting its responsibility – it is violating its own constitution.
Article II, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution states in unmistakable terms: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
While this language mirrors the Eighth Amendment, Colorado’s Supreme Court has long interpreted its own provision more broadly than the federal minimum. In People v. Gaskins, the court made it clear that Colorado’s protections against cruel punishment “are not limited by federal interpretations where broader protections are appropriate.”
That distinction matters right now. Tina Peters’ health has gotten so bad that keeping her in prison isn’t just unwise — it’s dangerous to her life. She is facing a real medical emergency, and the prison simply doesn’t have the doctors, equipment, or ability to treat her.
Colorado courts have already made it clear that when the state denies proper medical care, waits too long to provide it, or keeps someone in a place that cannot safely care for them, it crosses the line into cruel and unusual punishment.
This standard originates from Estelle v. Gamble, which held that “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs” violates constitutional protection against cruel punishment. Colorado courts explicitly adopted this principle in Ramos v. Lamm.
But Colorado’s Constitution goes even further. It recognizes that a sentence can start out lawful, yet become unconstitutional later if circumstances change. In other words, if someone’s health or situation gets so bad that the original punishment becomes far more severe than anyone intended, Colorado law says the courts must step in.
The Colorado Supreme Court has already confirmed this idea. In People v. Drake, the court made it clear that if a sentence becomes far too harsh because of a person’s medical condition, the courts have a duty to step in and declare it unconstitutional.
Colorado is also known for having one of the toughest proportionality standards in the country. In cases like People v. McNally and People v. Deroulet, the courts stressed that punishment has to make sense not just for the crime, but for the person’s actual situation.
When someone is so sick that prison can’t help them, can’t rehabilitate them, and can’t even keep them alive, the punishment stops serving any purpose. At that point, it becomes punishment for punishment’s sake — and Colorado’s Constitution has never allowed that.
That is exactly what Tina Peters is facing. Her health is collapsing. She isn’t getting the care she needs, not because the staff wants to harm her, but because the facility simply isn’t equipped to treat someone in her condition. And when state officials know that staying in prison will only make her worse — possibly fatally worse — and they refuse to act, that crosses a moral and constitutional line.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT ILLINOIS REVIEW
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.
